Apr 16, 2012

Chief ALJ Bans Mandatory Prehearing Orders

When I post a document using Scribd, I usually get messages indicating that access to Scribd is blocked for those accessing the internet through Social Security's domain. For those of you accessing this at work at Social Security, are you able to see the document above at all or is the problem just with going further by going to Scribd itself or trying to download the document? I can't tell how serious the problem is since I'm not on Social Security's network. I don't know why access to Scribd would be blocked. Scribd isn't aspiring to be Wikileaks. It's just a useful service.

18 comments:

Anonymous
said...

please post the memo (SSA can't access from work).

Interesting. The goal of SSA is to reduce the backlog. Seems like having the attorney provide some info on the case prior to the hearing could only help accomplish that goal? What is the rationale for banning pre-hearing requirements.

Yeah it's blocked from SSA computers. In general, any kind of media from a user-content site (YouTube, Flickr, Dropbox, etc.) is blocked. Does this blog not have the ability to store pdfs (I'm assuming that's what this memo is?).

Anon 9:57 am: There is nothing wrong in theory about prehearing orders and certainly encouraging timely submission of evidence is good for eveyone, but some ALJs use prehearing orders in a manner that fosters delay. Sometimes we can't help but get last minute evidence. Some ALJ's will delay and postpone hearings if their particular prehearing requirements aren't met. If there is no uniform prehearing order policy, you get what I have experienced which is erratic behavior by some judges which is ultimately unfair to the claimants.

It is a little difficult to have a meaningful hearing when the Rep walks in and drops 400 pages of medical records covering the last 12 months of time in your lap at the hearing. It is also frustrating if they drop 400 pages in your lap and 90 percent of it is duplicates from other evidence in the record. Further, when a case sits in POST waiting for the Rep to get MER after the hearing for too long, the powers that be start raising cane about moving the case, and sometimes the Judge may have a difficult time recalling everything that transpired at the hearing, perhaps to the claimant's detriment, although unintentional. When one requests a hearing, one should be ready to proceed in a timely fashion. Further a timely brief submitted goes a long way in pointing the overworked Judge towards the relevant evidence supporting the claimant's allegations. Oh, by the way, there was only one page to this Memo.

Part of problem is anonomys ALJ's now. We have one ALJ who requires prehearing brief, others don't. We don't know who ALJ is now. One rep decided since he has no indication who ALJ will be he will would no longer do prehearing brief (it was required in a particular style). Gets to hearing, ALJ makes him sit and hand write the brief.

Interesting that it isn't posted on SSA's Chief Judge Bulletins page. Last bulletin is dated 11/18/11.

anon 8:45's story shows why some ALJs have their own special "orders", to show who is at which end of the leash. Some ALJs tell you they do not need prehearing briefs because they read the file and understand the medical conditions and Social Security's laws, regs, and rulings.

Amusing isn't it that some of the posters above want to require briefs, and apparently want to threaten sanctions, and yet we have the new mystery judge rule. How exactly is that supposed to happen? Sign the letter asking for the brief with a pseudonym?

@ anon 12:20...just write a brief for each client. Sure that will double the actual time you spend on each case from 1 hour to 2 hours, but at least you'll have some useful knowledge before you show up at the hearing.

We have an ALJ who requires a brief before the hearing is even scheduled. Then once your theory of the case is presented, he goes fishing for evidence to defeat it by sending interrogatories to MEs and VEs all over the country. And if you don't submit your brief, he threatens a delay and sanctions against the rep. This is the type of abuse this Memo will hopefully stop.

Been an alj now for 10 years. God forbid the reps are held to any standard, no we couldn't have that. With very few exceptions, they come to every hearing without a clue as to what the issues are in the case, with an evidence dump the night before the hearing or not having the record complete despite my office scheduling 3 months out. When they lose they argue 'the judge should have' and get away with it. And no matter how crappy a job they do, if they win they get paid the full amount. They are an embarassment to the legal profession.

To Anonymous ALJ at 5:22: I am aware that some reps act in the way that you describe but that is a very broad brush you are using. The other side of that coin is there are ALJ who don't have a clue about a file or the issues involved in the case either. Both are equally unacceptable. What the Memo gets at is ALJs who use strong arm tactics against reps and their clients by imposing artificial, arbitrary deadlines and then threaten sanctions or other adverse consequences if you don't comply with the ALJs edict.

I just received one of these now prohibited mandates from an ALJ (it was issued before the memo came out but received afterward) My first inclination was to just respond by sending a copy of the memo to the ALJ but all that will do is fan the flames of their negative attitude toward this process. I will still submit the requested brief, but now I don't have to fear repercussions if I can't submit it within his arbitrary deadline.

The fact that I have other clients whose hearings are scheduled, new clients who need appeals filed, briefs to write in other cases, those types of things. This particular Judge asks for a brief within 21 days of his letter. No hearing scheduled yet. So its arbitrary.